Adult, Community Services and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel
Friday 24 September 2010
ADULT, COMMUNITY SERVICES AND HEALTH OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY PANEL
24 SEPTEMBER 2010
PRESENT: Councillors Mrs Endacott (Chairman), Baskerville, Mrs Kemp, Lenton, Majeed, Mrs Napier and Mrs Proctor.
Non-Members: Councillor Dudley
Officers: Mr Abrahamson, Mr Herlinger, Mr A Scott and Mr Skerman
part i
38/10 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mrs Evans and Mrs Yong.
39/10 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Mrs Proctor declared a Personal Interest in agenda item 4 – Preliminary Budget Report – as a Board Member on People to Places.
Councillor Mrs Napier declared a Personal Interest in agenda item 4 – Preliminary Budget Report – as her son was in receipt of Direct Payments from the Council.
Councillor Mrs Endacott declared a Personal Interest in agenda item 4 – Preliminary Budget Report – as she knew a person working in Bridge that Gap Coffee Shop.
40/10 NHS WHITE PAPER: EQUALITY AND EXCELLENCE: LIBERATING THE NHS - RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION
Members considered the report due to be submitted to Cabinet on 30 September 2010 on the key consultation document ‘Local Democratic Legitimacy in Health,’ which set out the new functions and responsibilities for local authorities including adults and children’s health and social care services. The document’s aim was to strengthen democratic legitimacy at a local level, with Local authorities having the responsibility for promoting the joining up of local NHS services, social care and health improvement.
The report outlined how the changes would be taken forward in the Royal Borough, with the establishment of a major project sponsored by the Lead Member for Adult & Community Services and a corporate Programme Board chaired by the Strategic Director of Adult & Community Services, which would scope and consider resource issues for effective delivery of the new statutory requirements.
In response to a number of questions, the Lead Member for Adult and Community Services and the Officer commented further on the establishment and of the Project Board. Members were advised that the Board had yet to be formally constituted and that meeting referred to in the report had been an initial meeting involving key officers called to draw up draft terms of reference and proposed membership. Lead Member advised that the Membership of the Board had not been finalised but confirmed that it would include the Chairman of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel and a member of the Opposition Group.
Members were also informed that the Primary Care Trust and GP’s in East Berkshire had responded positively to the proposals contained within White Paper, in particular, local GP’s had generally welcomed the proposal to establish GP Consortia. The Officers also commented further on the role and responsibilities of the Health and Wellbeing Boards, although in order to avoid any conflicts of interest the need to establish clear distinctions between their decision making and scrutiny functions was stressed.
Arising from the discussions, Members endorsed the proposed comments to be made on the NHS White Paper, subject to the following comments/suggested amendments:-
- Recommendation 2 be amended to state that the comments should be agreed, subject to the incorporation, as appropriate, of any further comments from Members of the Adult, Community Services and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel.
- For clarification purposes, paragraph 3.16 should be amended to reflect the fact that Project Board had not met but that key officers had held an initial discussion on the proposed Membership, Terms of Reference and operation of the Project Board.
- The membership of the Project Board should include the Chairman of the Adult, Community Services and Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel and a member of the Opposition Group.
- Where appropriate, the responses should be amended to make them more “person centred” and patient focused, with the use of plain English to make them more relevant to local people.
- The Healthwatch function should be considered as holding all elements of support and advocacy
- The proposed response to question should 15 be amended to include the following words at the end "to ensure patients and service users have a real say in how services should be shaped and delivered".
- RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised that Panel endorses the proposed report, subject to the comments as outlined above.
41/10 PRELIMINARY BUDGET REPORT
Members considered the report due to be submitted to Cabinet on 30 September 2010 on the preliminary budget. It was noted that the report had been presented earlier in the annual budget cycle than usual due to the challenges presented by the national economic context and in particular the inevitable reduction in Coalition Government funding However, it was stressed that the actual levels of Government support would not be known until the details of the Comprehensive Spending Review had been worked through.
The report contained an updated Medium Term Financial Plan that attempted to quantify the impact on the borough of some of the announcements that had been made to date. It also provided initial estimates of additional spending pressures that had emerged, together with proposals to reduce spend in 2011/12, and where possible in 2010/11, to address current year forecast overspends.
The Lead Member for adult and Community Services and the Officers then responded to a number of questions/concerns raised by Members of the Panel. In particular, the Lead Member confirmed that pay for all Royal Borough employees would be frozen and that any activity currently supported by specific Government grant would stop if the grant funding stream was removed. The Officers commented upon the proposed implementation of the new self-directed support model for advice, assessment and case management and advised that the new arrangements would enable Social Workers to prioritise their time more effectively thereby enabling them to assist those that required greater help. The redesign of the software would ensure that the system was more effective and efficient.
In response to concerns raised about the externalisation of the Home Care Service, it was re-iterated that the decision to externalise the service had already been made and would not be reviewed. However, the Officers commented upon the discussions that had been held with external providers in relation to the expectations that would required in terms service delivery, training needs and monitoring arrangements.
In response to concerns raised about the proposed relocation of the Bridge that Gap coffee shop from the Town Hall to new and replacement facilities at Boyn Grove, Members were advised that what was being proposed would be an enhancement of the current service and the relocation to the new facilities would enable a more broader range of services to be offered and would provide greater opportunities and would better meet the needs of service users. It was also confirmed that discussions had been held with People to Places on the need amend the contract to provide a dial-a-ride service and that the services carried out by the Housing Options and Supporting People teams were being reviewed to establish how best to deliver the services within the current capacity.
Arising from the discussion, the Panel endorsed the report, subject to the following comments/suggested amendments:-
- The "What will be different for residents as a result of this decision" paragraph be amended to include the word "will" after the word "members" in the first line of the paragraph.
- Paragraph 3.18 be amended to reflect the fact that officers were actively looking at other possible funding streams.
- Paragraph 3.23 be amended to state that the £6M of corporate funding related to the financial year 2011/2012 only.
- The report be amended to identify more clearly the risks associated with many of the cost savings being proposed.
- Concern was expressed that no consideration would be given to the possibility of retaining, in exceptional cases, activity currently supported by specific Government grant if such funding was withdrawn.
- Concern was expressed at the relocation of Bridge the Gap to the new facilities at Boyn Grove. The contention that the relocation would result in an enhancement of what was currently provided and afford service users greater opportunities was questioned.
RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinet be advised that Panel endorses the proposed report, subject to the comments as outlined above.
42/10 MEETING
The meeting, which began at 3.30pm, ended at 5.30pm.